tv The Dylan Ratigan Show MSNBC June 5, 2012 4:00pm-5:00pm EDT
governor scott walker facing off with milwaukee mayor tom barrett. walker has outspent his opponent 7 to 1. the polls close in seven hours, and despite $63.5 million in ads spending, this will all come down to voter turnout. we know typically primary turnout only 10%, which of course people don't like the candidates because nobody participated in the selection of those candidates. recall turnout expected to be 635%. 10% is typical primary turnout. it's odd when you see folks agree to things when you talk to them in a room. the gap has statistically doubled since '87. former campaign adviser, author of a new book entitled "of, by,
for -- the new politics of money, debt and democracy." you start your book with a quote, saying, we do not need a revolution in america, we need a reformation. will you explain that comment? >> sure. this is a 200-year-old what the founders of this country call an experiment in self-government, and it's kind of gone off the tracks at this point. so what we don't need is a revolution where they started this country 200 years ago by overthrowing monarchys. >> and through outbursts and all this. >> right, and it was successful all over the world. there's not very many monarchys, and what we need is reform. literally by reform is reforming, like taking things and redoing it. so we have this architecture, this system of self-government, but it's not working, and it's not working for a whole lot of
reasons. we've had -- and one of the biggest reasons is that people have kind of become disenfranchised from it. >> i would say that's the biggest reason, is people -- obviously, my narrative at this point and my point is fairly well understood and folks come up and they say, what do we do, what do we do, and the number one thing is to feel that there isn't something for them to do, and as a result they disengage. you disagree with that. you believe there is something for everybody to do, and you talk about us as the heroes of our own stories, effectively. what would you have us do? what would you have the disenfranchised do who i think correctly observe the problems and are looking for answers. >> right. so as you pointed out numerous times, you know, we have an electoral process which is really important because that's the vote, and that's in the end where it comes down where people make decisions, and that is completely kruptd and dysfunctional. so if you keep going through a
system that is broke without first stepping aside and creating something different that people can be involved in and where their voice actually matters, and really, the first two steps of this, and what we have to do is organize. in the first two steps to organizing are one, education, which you do a very great job on the show -- >> just more awareness. understanding what's going on around you. >> well, for example, banking. nobody knows how the banking system works in this country. >> more than they knew four years ago. >> that's true. >> thanks to a lot of other folks. >> still, people won't know, so we won't have a reform of the banking system until people know how it works. >> so your point is the first phase is to get awareness of any problem to a critical mass, which is a necessary p prerequisite to anything else happening. >> right. and the second step in that is talking to each other. we don't talk to each other politically anymore. we don't have the dialogue to do
that. ten years ago, i tell people, you know, i can stop a political conversation instantly in about three sentences whether i know you're liberal or conservative or whatever, because there's only a couple things i have to say and you're going to shut me out. >> which is what? give me an example. >> you say -- >> i'm your uncle bob. you're going to shut me down in three words. what do you got? >> a quote, unquote, conservative. you know, there are problems with our economic system. >> and the brain shuts down. or i'm a liberal cousin. >> for your liberal cousin, you say, you know, i think d.c. is a problem. >> and they're done with you. >> right. >> i think a lot of people agree with what you're saying and the premise of your book which is, we're the heroes, we have to do this, and at the beginning of do this has expanded awareness, one, and talking to each other, two. >> right. >> the talking to each other has been where we seem to have --
awareness is a lot of problems. talking to each other as well, so how do you recommend folks get beyond this sort of bifurcated shutdown. >> by going to these problems that we have, for example, banking. i tend to go on the road and do this book with people who say they're conservative or liberal, and i just say let's not talk about conservative or liberal, let's not talk about democratic or republican, let's talk about the banking system. or let's talk about oil. and let's talk about how you've been paying, every time the economy gets going again, the price of oil is going to go up again. >> once you get to that awareness, then what happens? >> then start saying, how are we going to change this? how are we going to start changing the way the banking system and the money system works in this country? now, 120 years ago, 130 years ago, the populist had that very
conversation. they were -- and at that point 50% of the americans were involved in agriculture right back in the 1880s, 1890s. they had just average dirt farmers, and they had a conversation about money. they said, how does this money system work? what is money? not just like, who controls it, but what is money, and how should it work? and they came up with some very ingenius ways to do money differently than what eventually went out, which was the banks and the feds. >> you're saying absent awareness and absent talking to each other, reform is impossible. >> yeah. and a lot of people, as soon as you say, well, we have to start talking to each other, they kind of go, that's kind of trite, and it's not trite, it's essential. if we don't do that -- what's trite is going and saying, if we elect obama or we elect romney,
that's going to make a difference. it's pretty obvious it's not going to make a difference, right? but then it's easy to understand how they identify with politics in this country, right? they don't know what to do, and it's got to get created. there has to be an understanding with people that this is how this country is always changed. it's been about people getting together, from the revolution to, you know, andrew jackson getting rid of the first bank, the second bank, actually, to the populist, to the labor movement to the civil rights movement. >> the suffrage? >> yes, and really large forces who thought they were powerless until they got together and started saying, we believe the same thing, and we need to do something about it, right? >> pick your metaphors. the duelism, the tea party, the
liberals. we're not as divided as we appear to be but we won't find out unless we talk to each other. >> right, and the fact of the matter is they set up two separatists at this point. >> the system is designed to retain power by splitting us. we take our power back by unifying around issues by recognizing that we're the hero of our own story and that this is the history of our country. >> exactly. >> and the book is "of, by, for, the new politics of money, debt and democracy." the author, joe costello, three decades working on these very issues, and as you can tell, i'll go out with joe any time and help him sell his book because i agree with him. congratulations on putting this together. >> thank you very much. >> joe costello. straight ahead, a major ruling on gay marriage. what it means for a state that first led the cultural movement of tolerance only later to vote
that very tolerant right away. then, power play. a political showdown with the pentagon over the military, yes, the military moving to clean energy. so who is trying to pull the plug on that deal? plus, the historic event that has stargazers everywhere walking on eggshells. m they take because they don't take it with food. switch to citracal maximum plus d. it's the only calcium supplement that can be taken with or without food. that's why my doctor recommends citracal maximum. it's all about absorption. that's why my doctor recommends citracal maximum. high schools in six states enrolled in the national math and science initiative... ...which helped students and teachers get better results in ap courses. together, they raised ap test scores 138%. just imagine our potential... ...if the other states joined them. let's raise our scores. let's invest in our teachers and inspire our students.
to that announced it will not hear the latest appeal for the law, which was overturned in 2010, but the ban remains in effect while the legal battle continues to play out. so the reason we discuss this today, well, today's ruling sets up the next likely step for proponents of the ban, which is the u.s. supreme court. oh, goody. let's turn to today's mega panel. karen, susan and jimmy, who better than the supreme court to determine whether gay marriage should be intact in california? james, you must be thrilled. >> not gay people. god knows you would let gay people decide if they should get married. >> they shouldn't do anything in general, last time i checked. >> jonathan capehart put this in his column today. it's actually an excellent column. go to the "washington post" and look at it. people's rights shouldn't be put on ballot measures. governor christie said four or five months ago that he thought if plaque people had had their civil rights put on the ballot in the south in the 1960s, we
would be much better off. that's a paraphrase, but that's what he said. is he smoking something? >> i don't know. >> because i got to tell you, in the 1960s in mississippi, if you put civil rights on the ballot -- >> i get the point. >> the only place you can get this done correctly and not always correctly, by the way, they fixed it in subsequent cases, but the court is where it has to happen. it's the last bash of morality, in my opinion. >> it's not really a moral judgment in my view, susan. you're talking about the infinite quest for morality and the constant sort of quest to close those two lines. do you agree that the courts are the keeper of those? >> to some extent. they've dictated our culture to a large degree, but at the same time they've been deemed so politically political in the last -- >> the courts have been. >> the courts, but people don't
trust the courts and respect the courts the same way they used to, so i think that actually is going to cause a little bit of risk in our culture. >> i agree with what she says, karen. i see you nodding on camera. it sounds like you agree pretty much with a lot of what you heard here. where do you go with this, and is there room for the court to win the confidence of the people by a non-political but a more vested in the premise of equality that's articulated in the constitution in the first place? >> i think a lot of that will depend on, in a lot of these cases, because if this goes to the supreme court, i think it will be there about the same time as doma, for example, but even just go to the health care case, you know, but i think when we're looking at these 5-4 decisions, i think to susan's point, that's where the politics really come in. i think if we're looking at more of a 6-3 decision, that may start to rewind some of the lack of confidence.
because again, i think these very strict lines, even think about the conversations we've been having in expectation of some of these divisions, we're talking about the politics, we're not talking about the legality. and i think to your point, we're not talking about morality, we're talk being about civil rights, we're talking about our laws, our constitution. >> our constitution fundamentally entitles us to equality. >> but it's not meant to ban things, and that's the biggest problem that we have. the constitution was -- >> but it is to defend equality, which has then been interpreted, you know, with great distortion ever since, but i think like they say, the arc of history bends towards injustice and the interpretation towards equality only continues to move more in that direction, the only question is will it be painful or not? >> remember the civil rights debates in the '50s and '60s? that was very painful, and if you don't believe me, go back
and look at pictures of dogs on people, et cetera, et cetera. the term is the country's view on civil rights. equality is morality. morality is equality. i don't distinguish between the two of those things. and the court says equal justice under the law. to me that's a moral statement. i try to be a moral person. that's a moral statement. when you say to someone that they are lesser, that they should get in the back of the gay bus, that they should not have a special right, an equal right. that's a moral right. >> i'll tell you why i disagree with you, because i've watched in my years in this business, people prans arouce around with moral rights, condescending for everybody who comes near them for their lack of morality, using their judgment for anyone who is there at the time, in order to try to prosecute laws that invade women's vaginas that rule out everything.
it's the craziest thing i've seen in my entire life. i appreciate what you're saying, that equality is morality, and i wouldn't necessarily dispute that in a kitchen table environment, but for me it's important to distinguish morality and equality because morality suggests it's at the discretion of the morals of the individual. for me equality suggests that we made a deal when we got off a boat a few hundred years ago, which was, we're going to make a place for the first time in the history of the world where everybody is treated equally as an experiment to joe costello's point. i did want to clarify that whole thing. the panel is going to stick. karen, i see you've got a thought stuck to your lips there. what is it? >> i was just going to say whatever boat you came off of ultimately, right? >> and whether you wanted to get on it or not at the end of the day, the reality is that's the deal we made when we made this country, and the question is how are we going to, as our here lo
hereheroes of our stories, how are we going to fix the deal? our congress taking steps to make the deal worse, as far as i can tell, is trying to intervene against the pentagon to prevent the military which wants to go green from doing it. both the senate armed services committee and the house pushing measures prohibiting the military from investing in or buying alternate energy if traditional sources, they say, like coal and oil are cheaper, bearing in mind that energy companies finance our politicians to subsidize the very energy in question. the white house is fighting this, so too is the defense chief. leon panetta saying our drive is to be more efficient and environmentally sustainable. we learned from our navy veteran seals on security and that is their number one mission. we have to have the potential to transform the nation's approach to challenges we are facing in
the environment and energy security. that from the defense chief. bob dean with us from the nrdc action fund. he's also author of "reckless, the political assault on the american environment." . my first question, bob, is who is the donor financing jim imhoff out of california who is trying to intervene a pentagon-led effort to have more security in the world and nation stability. the number one contributor and oil and gas companies. i can think of no more sinister and disgusting and put rid -- if i had martin bashir i would have him say odious and contemptuous keeping our military from doing what they want to do because they've been the ones in the field of battle who know that energy sustainability is central to our security.
how do we humiliate senator imhoff for his audacity to intervene in this awful process? >> i'm going to leave that one to more creative minds than mine, dylan, but i will say this. the pentagon uses $19 billion of energy every year. they're trying to invest in renewable sources and they're doing it for three reasons. they want to make our forces stronger, they want to help control costs, and they want to deny our enemies around the world, many of whom are oil-producing nations that we're sending money to every day, they want to deny those countries the resources they need to come after our men and women. i was with an air force general just a few days ago, and he said to me the very first friend i lost in the invasion in iraq was a woman who was guarding a fuel convoy going to see our troops, going to fuel our troops, and that convoy was attacked by a roadside bomb. that american patriot was killed trying to get oil to our troops. the people at the pentagon, our commanders understand that if we're able to get more out of our fuel and if we're able to
turn to alternative fuel so we're not reliant on kborimport oil, it's going to make our forces stronger, it's going to make our troops more effective. >> i was talking to brandon webb who was the navy seal sniper instructor who has been very aggressive on all these issues, i asked what he thought global security equalled, and he said global security equals an increased culture of tolerance first and sustainability second. then if we can increase tolerance and increase sustainability, and that is global security more than anything else. how could that be lost on a senator who claims to be on the armed services committee who, instead of investing in the security of our nation and the world is instead fighting it? >> well, dylan, you mentioned the lobbying. the oil and gas industry has more than 1700 lobbyists in washington alone. it spends well over $100 million every single year lobbying in washington. that's in addition to the money
it pumps into the campaign coffers on capitol hill. the pentagon understands that we have to be forward leaning. that's why we have the best troops in the world, the best tanks, the best jets, and our commanders understand that in order to do that, we need to continue to invest in efficiency, in renewables. it's the same in our economy. that's how we make our economy stronger. that's how we sustain a prosperous and stronger america. >> i could not be more agressive in recommending our audience make hay at senator imhoff's office for even thinking about this. it's an outrage for me to think that our own troops who come back with all sorts of incredible efforts, all sorts of incredible damage and all sorts of incredible investment in the mission for tolerance and sustainability not be supported by the very politicians who have been sending them to war. it is a humiliation, i think, to
be a senator like that, let alone a senator like that taking money from gas companies while you -- it's just crazy. i hope everybody learns what's going on here. bob, thank you so much for your time. we'll take a moment here. up next, a specialist who says what the real reasons are between the growing gap of the have and have nots. for three hours a week, i'm a coach. but when i was diagnosed with prostate cancer... i needed a coach. our doctor was great, but with so many tough decisions i felt lost. unitedhealthcare offered us a specially trained rn who helped us weigh and understand all our options. for me cancer was as scary as a fastball is to some of these kids. but my coach had hit that pitch before.
there's simply no hiding the fact the last 30 years the gap between the wealthy and everybody else has exploded in this country. the specialist that joins us claims that the usual suspects, race, gender and immigration, play basically no role in that increasing gap. tim no is a columnist for the new republic, author of "the great divergence" in what we can do about it. i said to the staff before the show, tim, we have to find out what's on tim's mind, and they
said, oh, a lot is on tim's mind. have at it, my friend. what is going on here and what can we do about it? >> well, for 30 years incomes have been growing more unequal and that's a reversal of what we experienced in the united states from 1934 to 1979. a long period when incomes were growing more equal or at least were remaining stable with respect to one another. that included the great depression and world war ii but it also included the fantastic post-war economy where we saw more prosperity than we see today. that trend reversed itself after 1979, incomes started growing more unequal. and really, you've got two trends happening at the same time. one is a skill-based divide between people who went to college and increasingly went to graduate school and those who didn't, and the other divide is between the famous 1% and the other 99%. so you had these two
simultaneous trends creating greater income and equality. >> jimmy? >> so we fill things, that period you talked about, '30s and '70s, we made a lot of stuff in this country. we made tube socks, we made tanks, we made it all here, right? >> uh-huh. >> all of a sudden, we don't make any of that stuff anymore here, right? >> true. >> is there a correlation? should we begin to make more here? should the government incentivize international and american corporations to come and build things here, to give people jobs, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah? is there a correlation? >> i think there is a rough correlation. in the book i tried to look at what was unique to the united states with respect to the world economy. there are obviously a number of global factors at work here, but those are affecting all countries. heightened global competition is affecting all countries and yet income and equality is both
greater and accelerating faster here in the united states, so i tried to sort of weed out those global phenomena and just look at what was happening here in the u.s. and one thing we've got going here in the u.s. is a really rapid and alarming decline in the union sector. >> susan? >> when we saw occupy wall street and you saw a lot of energy in people coming together, fighting such inequality, they didn't get behind a certain purpose like what they wanted done. what do you advise people or what do you think we have to do as a country to truly address those problems? >> the last chapter of my book lists a number of things we need to do, some of those probably a little predictable, like i think we need to raise taxes on the wealthy, i also think we should create a government jobs program like we had during the 1930s with the wpa. i also think we need to impose price controls on college tuition. i think we should let in more skilled immigrants on h1b visas.
i think we should reregulate wall street, we should break up the big banks, we should give stockholders more say over ceo pay. >> obviously, tim, we have some comm commonality and, i'm sure, some disagreement. why is getting money out of politics not on that list? when i look at everything you say we should do, i can guarantee you none of that is going to happen because the banks are going to finance both parties as they are now to ensure we don't break up the banks. the energy companies are financing senators to try to prevent the pentagon from converting now. i'm interested -- do you -- what's your view on money and politics, secret money and politics and its role relative to your ideas? >> well, i don't address that very much in my book because i'm really more interested in looking at the problem than in -- and possible solutions than in looking at how to achieve those solutions. perhaps that's a little pie in the sky. but i do write in the book some about the growth of the lobby
sector in washington, d.c. i think actually the money spent on lobbying is more meaningful than the money spent on elections because there you got a lot of bang for your buck when you spend money on actual lobbying. you've got people actually telling members of congress how they should write the laws. now, in the 1960s, what happened was, the history is in the 1960s, corporations were having a rough time in washington with the rise of the regulatory state, the rise of the consumer movement, and you had a few lobbyists here in washington, really just a handful of corporate lobbyists, and one of them, brice harlow, startedie advanta evangelizing around the country saying we've got to build up around washington, d.c. he framed the challenge as one of specifically too much equality. he said the government was promoting equality too much and we need to push back.
so i would certainly agree that the growth in that sector has been extremely harmful. >> karen? >> you were just talking about too much inequality. i guess is the change partly a change in mindset that -- because it feels like in the political debate, the policy debate, there is this idea that somehow prosperity or equality is this finite concept rather than, you know, there is no reason to have these kinds of d disparities because we can all do well. one group doesn't have to do well at the expense of the other, but it seems like there has been a shift in the way we talk about policy here in washington that may be impacting what you're talking about. is that fair? >> i think that's right, and i think the growing corporate influence in washington is part of that. i think the decline of labor unions is also part of that. the whole dialogue has shifted away from ordinary people and toward this kind of fairy tale
notion of how entrepreneurship worked. capitalism did fine for most of the century, allocating a part of the gdp to working people. >> interesting times, to say the least, tim. congratulations on the book. "the great divergence" is the title. you just heard from the author, america's growing inequality crisis and what we can do about it. the subtitle on it, all the best with the book, and thank you for your investment in trying to raise folks' awareness of your perspective in washington. thank you. >> thank you, dylan. >> thanks to the panel here. a once in a lifetime site for all of us, believe it or not, and i mean this, once in a lifetime unless you plan to live another 100-plus years, is now 200 years away. how you get in on the action, next. ♪
>> more importantly, a spectacular sight that is rare, to say the least. in fact, the next time you'll get that we're going to get at 6:00 eastern will be the year 2117. that's 205 years from our current year of 2012. remember, of course, don't look directly at it. i've never understood it myself, so it's weird advice to give to you, but look at it but don't look at it. star gazers will use everything from solar glasses to look at
that, telescope glasses or a simple pinhole in an index card. we did that in middle school or something. you can watch it on nasa's website and they take care of all the stuff for you. coming up, how to die. joe klein on a personal journey through the american medical system that he experienced during his parents' final days. ♪ how are things on the west coast? ♪ ♪ i hear you... ♪ rocky mountain high ♪ rocky, rocky mountain high ♪ ♪ all my exes live in texas ♪ ♪ born on the bayou [ female announcer ] the perfect song for everywhere can be downloaded almost anywhere. ♪ i'm back, back in the new york groove ♪ [ male announcer ] the nation's largest 4g network. covering 2,000 more 4g cities and towns than verizon. rethink possible. [ male announcer ] we believe small things can make a big difference. like how a little oil from here
can be such a big thing in an old friend's life. purina one discovered that by blending enhanced botanical oils into our food, we can help brighten an old dog's mind so he's up to his old tricks. with this kind of thinking going into our food, imagine all the goodness that can come out of it. just one way we're making the world a better place... one pet at a time. vibrant maturity. from purina one smartblend. more than 50 times a day? so brighten your smile a healthy way with listerine® whitening plus restoring rinse. it's the only rinse that makes your teeth two shades whiter and two times stronger. ♪ listerine® whitening... power to your mouth. home protector plus, from liberty mutual insurance, where the costs to both repair your home and replace your possessions are covered. and we don't just cut a check for the depreciated value --
we can actually replace your stuff with an exact or near match. plus, if your home is unfit to live in after an incident, we pay for you to stay somewhere else while it's being repaired. home protector plus, from liberty mutual insurance. because you never know what lies around the corner. to get a free quote, call... visit a local office, or go to libertymutual.com today. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy?
the day starts with arthritis pain... a load of new listings... and two pills. after a morning of walk-ups, it's back to more pain, back to more pills. the evening showings bring more pain and more pills. sealing the deal... when, hang on... her doctor recommended aleve. it can relieve pain all day with fewer pills than tylenol. this is lois... who chose two aleve and fewer pills for a day free of pain. and get the all day pain relief of aleve in liquid gels.
during our deals on wheels tour a couple years ago. they, as leaders in healing and health long ago rejected the fee for service model that benefits doctors and insurance companies and bureaucrats and hurts patients, and instead adopted a system where doctors work in teams, are paid salaries and are given results, health results-based bonuses. our next guest experienced firsthand how we treat our elderly brothers and sisters in this country, our parents, our families when he acted as a self-described death panel during the final months of his own parents' lives.
he, of course, normally reports the stories, but today he is here to take us through his story. joining us now is time magazine columnist and author joe klein. he chronicles his personal journey in this week's cover story, "how to die, what he learned in the last days of my mom and dad." joe, what did you learn and what are you hoping the rest of us learn through your decision to share one of the most acutely painful experiences that anybody will ever have the way you've decided to do it? >> well, the big thing that everybody learns, and we all go through this, so many of my friends are going through it. the big thing that i learned is it ain't easy. it's not easy to make life and death decisions about your own parents. but there are better ways to do it than the way most people go through it. my parents, let me tell you, they were both 91 years old, they were both suffering from
dementia. they had been together since the first day of kindergarten in rockaway beach, queens. they had been together for 86 years. and mom really wanted to just end it when it was time to end it. dad just kind of reacted as if old age was a reversible condition, and so he made it kind of tough. and he was in charge. and one thing that i found was when they were in traditional fee for service medicare, they -- dad was in charge of their home health care service which eventually grew to 24/7 home health care service, and there was this platoon of doctors, none of whom knew what each other were doing. their main doctor, their internist, was a very decent guy but he was intimidated by my dad, as a lot of people were. my dad was a successful
businessman and a really good n good man but he was tough. and once, you know, at a certain point, i was on one of my road trips. i'm on another one of my road trips now, by the way. i get a phone call from the internist who says, you know, your mom is in the hospital. she has pneumonia, she is not eating, and if we don't put in a feeding tube, you're going to lose her. and i couldn't get a really straight answer from him about what that meant, how much time i had. i knew she didn't want, specifically did not want a feeding tube, but i was in iowa, my brother was in asia, and i didn't want to make a decision like that without seeing her one more time, so i gai thve them t go-ahead. after that, i moved them from their home and from fee for service medicare into a nursing home where they used the geisinger system. it's based on the mayo clinic
system. >> just so everybody understands, the critical distinction here is one is the medicare/medicaid which most of us, i think, are familiar with where you end up with this cadre. the other is a patient as a patient-centric system, whether it's student-centric or whether it's bureaucrat-centric or whether it's teacher-centric, but this was a model designed to be patient-centric. >> right. >> so what happened? >> the basic premise here is all of the doctors are part of the same team, and there is an elaborate system of electronic recordkeeping. so they have a pretty good idea of how things work, how things go. and so when i moved them to the nursing home, immediately three things started happening. one was doctors stopped
recommending more procedures, more needles stuck into my parents who were pincushions by that point. number two was they were seeing this host of specialists, and, you know, they didn't have much time to live, and those visits were unnecessary. so they stopped doing that. it was with my consent, by the way. and the third thing was, and this was the most important thing. the doctors started acting as if i were a cendient human being, i was someone with a mind. they would consult me every day. dad would go on walk-abouts and he had neuropathy and he would fall down. when they changed the medication, they consulted me. i felt -- for the first time, i felt i was part of a team, and the rest of the family did, too. it really ease md my mind to be able to go through these kind of
difficult decisions without feeling that i was alone. and so we would have conversations like -- about mom's feeding tube, and the doctor immediately said to me, you know, when they stop wanting to eat, they're telling us something. and so we tried -- you know, i suggested that maybe we reduce the amount of food coming in through the feeding tubes to see if we can boost up her appetite again. doctors said, sure, we can try that, but i wouldn't build up my hopes. and she was right. and then we had a meeting with the lead geisinger doctor, and we decided it was time to pull the plug on mom. i brought in my whole family, my brother came in from asia. but at that time he did something really amazing. he said, your mom has a do not resuscitate order, your dad doesn't. i said, yeah, my dad is the kind of guy who would want to be resuscitated, and the doctor
said sbut you know, he broke tw ribs last week, and if his heart stops beating and we try to resuscitate him, we're going to break the rest of his ribs. that's the kind of thing you never hear from a fee for service doctor. so we slapped a do not resuscitate order on him. >> this is the 8 jillion dollar question. the more people learn about the geisinger system or the mayo model, charlie kolb at the center for economic development, big corporate leaders all point to feet for service chasm for the cultural problems you just described, not to mention the mission, all the aspects and the benefits of the group mission-based medical team as opposed to this nickel and diming thing. what do you -- what do people
have to demand for change in this country? >> they should be taking a look at my e-mail since the piece appeared. i'm getting angry e-mails from doctors saying, i just don't understand. i have to say, the fee for service model fits into the culture of medicine in this country in ways that really rein forces some of the bad things we're doing but also some of the good things about being a doctor. number one -- >> doesn't that assume a human is a piece of chopped liver and not a human being? it's one thing being a human factory, it's another if i stick more needles in my friend. >> there is something probably more important than that one. one is malpractice. and trial lawyers are going to have to get used to it. one of the reasons why these doctors are doing the extra
x-ray and the extra blood test is they don't want to be sued. now, the president has already said that if republicans wanted to go along with obamacare, he would go along with malpractice reform. it's about time we got that one done. the third thing is really kind of benign. it's the hippocratic spirit of medicine. they want to do anything to keep the patient alive. sometimes that's the wrong thing to do as it was when my dad showed up at the hospital with kidney failure. >> at the same time, when you talk to the mayo doctors, and i'm sure the geisinger doctors, it's not as if the fact they're not in a fee for services preventing them from the hip kra pocratic oath, with all due respect. >> these were great doctors. they were very caring and they proposed things in the best interests of any parents, making passing an easier thing for my parents but also for their family. >> the article is on the cover of time magazine.
it's called "how to die." it is an exploration of joe's own personal journey that is an insight between a mission culture when you don't have fees for service or a dominance cull you tour when you're trying to charge money for service like a person who has a car. joe, a pleasure. a guest there, i had no idea who that man was. someone snuck in the house but he looked. ♪ i'd like to thank eating right, whole grain, multigrain cheerios! mom, are those my jeans? [ female announcer ] people who choose more whole grain tend to weigh less than those who don't. multigrain cheerios
ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 let's talk about how some companies like to get between ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 you and your money. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 at charles schwab, we believe your money should be available ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 to you whenever and wherever you want. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 which is why we rebate every atm fee worldwide. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 and why our mobile app lets you transfer funds, ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 execute trades, even deposit checks just by ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 taking a picture, right from your phone. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 so talk to chuck and put those barriers behind you.
well, as we're always looking to expand our world, our culture, i give to you for the first time in the history of the dylan ratigan show a poetry reading by david goodfriend with a twist on his daily rant. >> thanks, dylan. my fellow cheeseheads, today is the day to tell big money go away. oil money from out of state, mining money became of late. millions spent on paid-for stalkers, all to prop up old scott walker. this is not our badger state where my public schoolteachers wrote on the slate, play fair, play nice, play by the rules. not paying scott walker to cut the schools. now, since i left madison for old d.c., i ask a favor from you
to me. get up, get mad, turn off the tv and cast a ballot in milwaukee or beloit or racine or spring green orla cross. that will show the host who's boss. if you're sick of all the blowing smoke, vote. if you want to scare the daylights out of the brother's coke, vote. cheeseheads, badgers, today is the day, vote your conscience. it's the american way. dylan? >> very well presented, david, and for purposes of contrasts to only reinforce the poem, i will not step upon it. i would like to bring to everybody's attention what happened in china yesterday on the anniversary of tiananmen square where they are not allowed to say poems like david just did, let alone vote.
look at that. that is the degree or the measurement of the decline in the shanghai exchange. look closely. june 4, 1989 to the hundredth. it is impossible to manipulate sach market, but the people of china looked very fondly on the shanghai exchange when it spoke everything they could not say. thank god we can, and thank you for being with us. i am dylan ratigan, and "hardball" is up next. the blues brothers are back. let's play "hardball." i'm chris matthews in washington. the gang is back together. bill clinton, big bill himself, the one and only bubba, was out on the town